ADMIRALTY TELLS THE TRUE FACTS

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 857, 8 November 1916, Page 9

ADMIRALTY TELLS THE TRUE FACTS

NO BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. A. mid X.Z Cohit: Axsoi'ialion <nul llcuttr. (Received November 8, 9.30 a.in.) LONDON, November 7. The Admiralty states that the German Press is attempting to make capital out of what it describes as a “.second Baraloug case.” One object; is the inciting of American opinion against Great. Britain, and another is the finding of arguments in favour of an unrestrained submarine campaign. The facts are perfectly simple. On the morning of September 24, 1915, in the western channel, the submarine P4l was engaged in sinking a British merchantman. Meanwhile a converted merchantman, commissioned as an auxiliary ship, approached. Her character could he immediately recognised, and lest the submarine should submerge before she was within range she hoisted neutral colours —a perfectly legitimate ruse de guerre. When she came within range she hoisted the white ensign, as British warships arc required to do, and tired on and sank the submarine. The commander's immediate preoccupation was the rescue of the British steamer's crew, who had been compelled to take to the boats, 50 miles from the nearest port. The auxiliary ship then closed on one of the sunken steamer's boats, which had broken adrift, and in which were (wo of the submarine's survivors. These were rescued in the same way, but after the victims of the submarining. The use of a neutral flag in order to approach within range of an enemy is a recognised naval practice, repeatedly adopted by the Germans. The majority of the Moewe’s victims were secured by this method. It is difficult to believe that anybody except Germans could base on these facts an accusation of brutality, on the ground that the English, and not the German, survivors were saved first, by a few minutes. The allegation that the Admiralty ever issued orders that survivors of submarines need not bo rescued is an absolute lie, as was explicitly denied in the Note of February 25, regarding the Baralong case.